Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

OK, I agree, the layer "stretching" is probably just a filter. But the louder hammer brightness might be an extra sample overlayed on top, with the filter applied to it. I imagine this is what Yamaha calls "Spectral Component Modeling".

THose tow pictures tell us it is NOT a simple high pass or low pas filter being applied. All filters like that have a roll off. I think now that the sound is synthesised, not played from a sample at all. The synthesis may be based on samples or anlyisis of sample. It looks to me like the lower velocity just simply never have the higher order overtones, not filtered just not synthesised.

I think what is stored inside TruePianos is almost exactly the picture we see.

If I'm right this is a lot like the way Roland describes their "Super natural" technology. They record the amplitude of the varoius overtones and how the amplitude changes over time. Then when yo move some parameters (hammer hardness) it makes adjustments to how the overtones play out over time. Finally when you strike the key the sound is synthesised. Seem like TP is doing the same as Roland. Both are sample based but the samles are very, highly processed to the point where there can no longer even be called "recordings", "Measurements" is a better terms I think.

dewsterOn this very close look It seems that samples are not exactly the same - but still, the differences are extremely subtle.

ChrisATP is not like Roland SN at all. Roland has obvious visible and audible variations between all velocities, similar to those in Vienna Imperial (I don't have picture of its layers right now, maybe dewster can post it).

It makes absolutely no sense to me why many critical sound features are missing when the HP-307 plays a MIDI file - shouldn't all features enabled be the default? Roland is leaving everyone to their own devices, flailing around trying to turn them back on, without so much as even a MIDI spec. It's almost like a major manufacturer isn't standing behind their product or something. People want to buy these things and have them just work, that's why they shell out the big bucks.

There might be reasons for that:

1) Patent license restrictions.2) Usage of closed source third party software.3) Maybe the work is done by more than one processor and it is technically impossible to have then both responding to MIDI.

Probably they will not tell the true reason and will not fix this in an update. It might be impossible to fix due to technical or licensing reasons.

Now for me the only conclusion is: Dont spend tons of money for that proprietary stuff, use softwarepianos ;-)

1) Patent license restrictions.2) Usage of closed source third party software.3) Maybe the work is done by more than one processor and it is technically impossible to have then both responding to MIDI.

Probably they will not tell the true reason and will not fix this in an update. It might be impossible to fix due to technical or licensing reasons.

If it's 1 we need to burn down the patent office.If it's 2 Roland needs to fire their legal department.If it's 3 Roland needs to fire their engineering department.

I believe also that modelled pianos use a lot of processing power. So they will probably only be usable as solo instruments.

MIDI instruments are normally multitimbral, that means, multiple MIDI channels can use them simultaniously. That is probably not the case for the modelled piano. Probably this is implemented in another way than the other MIDI instruments.

So that might be another reason why there are MIDI problems.

This is also a problem with some software pianos. However, it is not a problem with Kontakt player based pianos.Sometimes I play MIDI piano files, that have multiple tracks. Simply to solve: load one and the same piano multiply with different MIDI channels. The memory is needed only once, it is shared.This can be easily done with the PC because it has probably 100 times more processing power and 1000 times more RAM and 100000 times more nonvolatible storage.

I think they may be using a second additive layer for the string brightness / hammer sound. But, yeah, other than that it seems rather primitive.

I think dewster is right. TP is in no way similar to SN, I even doubt they're using any kind of modeling (I don't regard using multiple components of a sampled sound as "modeling"). BUT: I still like the sound signature of TP better than that of Roland's SN (sorry Roland owners). It's not always about the best technology but about playability and quality of the basic sound, despite many technical (even audible) limitations.

I uploaded a DP-BSD mp3 of a VST called "Supreme Pianos", which claims to be physically modeled, using no samples at all.

I downloaded the demo and am able to get the popping noises to go away, but can't fix the short note decay thing. Decaying notes just fall off the face of the earth.

- It passes the pedal down sympathetic resonance test - the sound of this is nice.- It passes the key down sympathetic resonance test, though the effect is subtle.- It largely passes the pedal down silent replay test, though the vel=1 note replays.- It fails the quick pedal partial damping test.- No support for partial pedaling.- It doesn't appear to be looped, though there is some evidence of a transition between note attack and note decay.- Stretched, both visually and audibly.- Stretch groups: 2,3(x28),2 = 30 groups.- 2 velocity layers, the upper one blended somehow, harsh step @ vel=66.

This product strikes me as a work in progress. It might not be a strictly sampled instrument, but the end result largely boils down to the same thing. I like the fact that it isn't looped and has nice sympathetic resonance, but they need to lose the stretching, and fix that velocity switch - it just about gave me whiplash.

And, is it my imagination, or are we going backwards lately? When it comes to the subtleties of how pedals and keys work and interact, no one (except Pianoteq) is able to get everything right for some reason, and it seems like it is only getting worse.

And, is it my imagination, or are we going backwards lately? When it comes to the subtleties of how pedals and keys work and interact, no one (except Pianoteq) is able to get everything right for some reason, and it seems like it is only getting worse.

how large is the market of people wanting to use a VST for a complete simulation of an acoustic compared to the market that just wants a 'good sounding piano in the mix' (which will be compressed/eq'd/...)? I think it is a very small niche, which is well served by mostly only pianoteq at this point, other products likely have other priorities.

how large is the market of people wanting to use a VST for a complete simulation of an acoustic compared to the market that just wants a 'good sounding piano in the mix' (which will be compressed/eq'd/...)? I think it is a very small niche, which is well served by mostly only pianoteq at this point, other products likely have other priorities.

Good point, though surely it can't be that difficult to do this stuff right. Most offerings seem to be the product of people who either don't understand how pianos work or don't believe in code craftsmanship (or both).

heh, given that I work as a software developer during the day, I can definitely let you know that 'code craftsmanship' is all fine & dandy, but in the end you are going to implement what is required by the feature set agreed with marketing and product management and QA.

The old adage that 90% of the program takes 90% of the time, and the other 10% takes 90% of the time comes to mind, you'd be surprised how many "can't be difficult" things take a long time & effort to get right, and if you are aiming at the 'piano in the mix' or 'film score with some piano' crowd the ROI is just not there, it's a much better business decision to spend the development time on a new/different piano rather than getting all the intricacies of the DPBSD test just right.

The pianoteq folks, given that they are operating with modeling, have it paradoxically a bit simpler, given that if your model is 'good enough' you will get a lot of these behaviours 'for free'. I can definitely see how going from a raw 4-layer sample set to something that responds to partial pedaling, harmonics and so on would not be easy at all.

And, is it my imagination, or are we going backwards lately? When it comes to the subtleties of how pedals and keys work and interact, no one (except Pianoteq) is able to get everything right for some reason, and it seems like it is only getting worse.

how large is the market of people wanting to use a VST for a complete simulation of an acoustic compared to the market that just wants a 'good sounding piano in the mix' (which will be compressed/eq'd/...)? I think it is a very small niche, which is well served by mostly only pianoteq at this point, other products likely have other priorities.

I would be hoping that the market for a semblance of excellence would be expanding not contracting.

I'm wondering what could the "other priorities" be? It bothers me that mediocracy first comes to mind.

And yet when I listen to postings on another music forum where the piano isn't solo, some of the piano sounds make me cringe. And as you say, "it fits in the mix". Jeez, what would a real live group do with a real live Steinway? Kill it to make it fit in?

And as you say, "it fits in the mix". Jeez, what would a real live group do with a real live Steinway? Kill it to make it fit in?

probably, but given that nowadays' mixing is as far from 'high fidelity' as possible, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war for example, it does make sense that products like Pianoteq are the exception rather than the rule...

heh, given that I work as a software developer during the day, I can definitely let you know that 'code craftsmanship' is all fine & dandy, but in the end you are going to implement what is required by the feature set agreed with marketing and product management and QA.

Not trying to pick on you, but I was - and hopefully still am - a coder (verilog). The only way I got as good as I am (however good that is) was by constantly rewriting, polishing, and reexamining my and other's code.

Originally Posted By: MarcoM

The old adage that 90% of the program takes 90% of the time, and the other 10% takes 90% of the time comes to mind, you'd be surprised how many "can't be difficult" things take a long time & effort to get right, and if you are aiming at the 'piano in the mix' or 'film score with some piano' crowd the ROI is just not there, it's a much better business decision to spend the development time on a new/different piano rather than getting all the intricacies of the DPBSD test just right.

I think doing it half-assed in the first place is more time consuming and expensive in the long term, though it gives management something to manage, and thus a reason to exist.

Craftsmanship is the only thing that interests me and keeps me going. Really believing in something is the only reason to do anything.

Not trying to pick on you, but I was - and hopefully still am - a coder (verilog). The only way I got as good as I am (however good that is) was by constantly rewriting, polishing, and reexamining my and other's code.

same thing here, but if the schedule says you have to be ready by day X and you know that doing things well would take until day X + 20 well, corners have to be cut unfortunately: as you well know most software developers would LOVE to always have the time to do it 'right' and complete and perfect the first time, but the moment you mix up the business side of things that starts becoming difficult (more or less difficult depending on how 'enlightened' the company you work for is, of course).

Originally Posted By: MarcoM

I think doing it half-assed in the first place is more time consuming and expensive in the long term, though it gives management something to manage, and thus a reason to exist.

and there you go about the 'enlightened' side of things, some companies realize that effort spent upfront saves a lot of time/expense in the long term, but most companies prefer to 'ship early, ship often (and ship a lot of bugfixes)'. Hardware companies have a lot less of a choice to do this (recalling a chip because of a hw bug is not simple, or cheap) but software companies especially in this day and age have very little penalty to pay, and paradoxically having a certain level of patching/bugfixing will generate income for your customer support department

Originally Posted By: MarcoM

Craftsmanship is the only thing that interests me and keeps me going. Really believing in something is the only reason to do anything.

I am lucky that currently I am in a position where I have to make very few compromises in terms of craftmanship (as in, I get the time to do things 'right' 99% of the times) but having been in this field for a while now I do realize this is the exception rather than the rule.

I am lucky that currently I am in a position where I have to make very few compromises in terms of craftmanship (as in, I get the time to do things 'right' 99% of the times) but having been in this field for a while now I do realize this is the exception rather than the rule.